HVAC is too mechanical and homeowners are too persnickety. You'd get killed on break fix and maintenance overhead and labor. If you tried not to, your service would suck and people would quit paying the leases or deduct out of pocket repair costs from lease payments.

Plus, what happens when you want to move? "Oh there's this weird lease on the HVAC..." could make it harder to sell.

The bigger problem is that HR and everyone else who sees arrest records take a "where there's smoke, there's fire" attitude towards arrests, assuming that anyone who got arrested is of questionable character, a troublemaker. Maybe there's even some assumptions that a lot of minor arrestees might get the charges dropped or dismissed.

They have no subtlety, willingness to understand what happened or differentiate why you got arrested, just that you were arrested.

Personally, I think arrest records without charges ought to be sealed after six months and it should be illegal for employers to even look at them at all. The unsealed database should be public but controlled and audited access, and not resold to database providers.

Convictions are trickier, and probably have a greater public right to know angle.

The only real authority over any IP block is in BGP announcements and who believes them.

Normally I wear protection, but then I thought, 'When am I gonna make it back to Haiti?'

It's really not hard to think of increased Fed control over fiber being a cover for NSA tapping activity. If the FBI is monitoring your fiber and something goes down, it's easy to say "we're on the job, nothing got cut, you must have an error in your network".

It used to be such ideas were tinfoil hat, but post-Snowden nothing seems tinfoil hat anymore.

That's a tad harsh. I have a 1680x1050 display connected as a third display via a USB-3 adapter and while I didn't expect much, it's worked pretty well for sysadmin tasks. I even occasionally throw full-screen Netflix/HBO/Amazon video on it without any serious problems.

I think the real benefit here isn't gee-whiz cutting edge display technology as much as it is a set of display(s) that are fairly seamless to carry around and use with a laptop to give you a triple head display.

It would be nicer, sure, to have displayport chaining and super high resolution display support but even without that you might get a more useful display resolution than 1366x768 and a pretty seamless mounting and portability setup than existing solutions.

And if they manage to use USB3.1 10 gig, it might lessen any lag effects, although it might be argued that displayport would be the more widely available interface.

I think you would probably make a lot of sacrifices for 252 square feet. That's a square 15 feet on a side, smaller than a standard 2 car garage. My dad lived in a 40 foot motorhome (8 ft x 40 ft) and that's 320 square feet and it felt small when I stayed in it; plus, most everything was motorhome-sized (stove, toilet/bath, etc) and a lot of built-ins & storage efficiencies.

This guy says he has a wife and 3 kids -- I think it might take some religious type orientation to live in a cold climate with 5 people in 250 sq ft of space.

The most bare necessities like a toilet, sink, tub, bed, stove, fridge, table, chairs add up pretty quickly. I didn't dig around enough in his web site to see if there were inside pictures, but I'd be curious to see how its arranged.

My biggest beef is just that the poster was disingenuous -- "I built a stone house for $7k". What he built is smaller than most garages and approaches a large shed in actual size. I'm also skeptical $7k can actually cover building, furnishing and decorating even that small space completely. Maybe if he moved in existing appliances. Maybe if he built all his own case goods. Maybe if the finish materials are like prison-basic (just coating the slab with a gloss topcoat instead of tile or carpet), white paint on the walls, etc

252 square feet is smaller than a lot of New York City apartments. A king size bed alone is 42 square feet.

I do agree that a lot of the "smart house" technology isn't very sustainable, and realtors I've talked to tend to say that it actually makes houses hard to sell.

I suspect, though, that some flavor of smart technology will become more normal at least with regards to electricity. I think improvements in battery capacity, reductions in net metering value and so on will get more people running from mixed power sources, whether it's grid, generators, solar, wind, etc, and an electrical system that understands its power source, available power, charge status, etc will become not unreasonable.

Interesting. How big is it? I didn't see any size estimates (nor did I spider the web site, either) but it looks pretty small -- 20 ft or less on the long side, maybe 10-15 on the short side, call it 300 sq ft. That's extremely small -- the standard size for a two car garage is 400 sq ft.

While it's impressive that you were able to produce an entire house for $7k, had you said "yeah, we build a stone house for $7k and it's only 300 square feet" it would have seemed more realistic.

It almost seems like you leave how small it is out of the "entire house for $7k" claim on purpose to make the brag seem more amazing.

The results of not killing them -- two US soldiers killed, one gravely injured, several killed when a rescue chopper comes under fire and crashes. I couldn't even give you the Taliban body count -- my guess is at least two dozen killed by the 3 SEALs as they tried to escape, another dozen or more killed by a helicopter when it finally rescued the "Lone Survivor".

The results of killing them? Two dead Taliban, the 3 SEALs escape.

And in the annals of military history in any similar situation the two Taliban would have been killed by any scouting party or commandos lest they imperil their mission and escape.

It's interesting how you only say "I did it" without explaining how you did it.

Most cost estimating uses ~$100/sq ft for residential properties, which would make your stone house 70 sq. ft.

Provide some facts -- finished square feet, internal materials and features, cost of land, etc, otherwise I have to remain skeptical.

Who builds a house for $7,000? Maybe 50 years ago if you did all the labor yourself and it was a two room affair with no plumbing or running water.

Even a very basic kitchen these days would cost more than that, and that would just be for cabinets, plumbing, electrical a fridge and a stove.

I'd wager that the mortar alone would cost a good chunk of the $7k by itself, if by "stone house" you mean a single floor house built with entirely stone walls to the soffits.

In reality, the only way to fight a war like ISIS is to do what was done to Germany -- level all cities (and all buildings in the city) that even are rumored to have insurgents. Without the commitment to do actual, yucky warfare that completely breaks all resistance... half-ass measures just creates emboldened enemies (think "Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!".)

This has been the weakness of the US military since at least Viet Nam and possibly even Korea.

The only way to "win" a war is to defeat the people, not just the army or the fighters. Sure, it's ugly because you kill a lot of people who don't really deserve to die in any conventional moral sense. But not doing it just causes you to lose lives for nothing.

But do they do it for humanitarian reasons or fear of punishment?

I don't know how true to life it was, but in "Lone Survivor" when the 3 SEALs capture two random Afghanis they have all manner of animated discussion about what to do with them -- if they let them go, they will likely get a whole bunch of Taliban after them, if they kill them or tie them up so they can't get away, they might end up with some kind of war crimes problem.

During their debate, it wasn't "what kind of a humanitarian are you" it was "Do you want to go to Leavenworth for the rest of your life?"

Frankly, I think they probably should have just executed them. It was pretty clear they were aligned with the enemy (one guy was carrying a two-way radio, and I don't think Afghanistan has a CB club) and the results of not killing them were kind of as predicted -- a company-size band of Taliban chasing them down and trying to kill them, succeeding at killing two of them.

It's hard to think of any other military campaign that would have allowed an operation to get compromised like that when snuffing the enemy would have been so effective.

Maybe a better future compromise is a little autoinjector they could carry with a strong dose of a short-acting (eg, 4-6 hours) but powerful sedative/hypnotic. Nighty-night for them and when they wake up, the soldiers are long gone.

Given what's pretty well known about the overlap between FSB/KGB and Russian organized crime, the generally corrupt nature of Russian government and the cronyism in Russian business, it's hard not to see Kaspersky being reticent about talking with a foreign reporter about Russian cybercriminals.

That being said, it may have more subtle influences. Maybe they're in social scenes that overlap? Maybe there's a certain nationalism or national pride going on where they want to talk about something OTHER than the usual narrative of Russian corruption and crime.

The base problem I have with Kaspersky is that given what we know about money-grubbing American corporations and their willingness to cave to the security apparatus, how does Kaspersky operate in Russia without caving or being strongarmed by the government, criminals, or worse?